Arizona weekly citizen., 1887-11-26
THE REVISED STATUTES.
Do they Constitute the Laws or Arizons,
 or Do they SOts

Permit me through your columns to reply to the correspondent of the Cou- rier, who has discarded the traditional lon-skin, under which the ass of old found refuge for sll save his bray, to don the integument of sn emasoulhted member of the bovine specie under which 10 hide his identity. The cores pondent in question labors to prove sDd establish that section II, Cf chapter 2, title LXIII. page 559, Revised Statutes of Arizona, means nothing, although il reads ss follows:
 -It being imprscticsble to properly inolose the fields in this territory, all sn- imals shall be kept under s shepherd so thst no injury may result to the nelds; and If any damage should result, 1t shall be paid by the owners of the animals causing the same, to be assessed by the justice of the peace in 6 summary man. ner, and paid to the person or persons whose fields may have been damaged. Whether or not the law means any thing. l. is really hazardous to say, but that 1t should mean something none will deny. Under the law to which ihe Re- vised Ststutes owe their ex'stence, 1t was the duty of the code commission ere sted by the les. legislature. to revise the laws of the territory, eliminating there from all crude. useless. Imperfecs and contradictory matter" and inserting such new provisions as they might deem necessary and proper. They either did SO, or did not, and ss their services have cost the territory S5,C00, besides s1 sd ditionsl 5000 for having the results of their labor published; the money has either been we'll earned or wasted. If ID return for this disbursement of $l0,- 600 of the tax payers money, the terri tory has received nothing except e vol tune containing matter which is not law, and from which IS omitted matter that thst is law, some one has blundered, and that, too, ID 6 manner very expensive to the treasury of the territorr. Ii the ''herd laws" of the various counties are still lsws, why do they not appear m the Revised Statutes, publication which the governor of territory has seen it 10 not only copyright, but to place the ex- orbitsnt price of ten dollars per vol ume on?
 If the volume does not contain the laws of the territory, what does it con tsini If one part of it be law and an- Otuct Phft VI AoICC nDu ChCoty NIo TO to distinguish between the real and the counterfeit? Shall the old maxim. False in one, false in sll," prevail, or shall each man be 6 law unto himself, like the correspondent of the Courier, and assume to say which shall be ob- served and which disregarded. Fsr be it for me to say that the Revised Stat utes are all law, or that sll law IS the revised statutes. for there are not usnt- ing members of she legislature to come forward and testify that in the making of these so-called revised statutes, the legislative assembly had DO part or DOT tinn? But the matter contained ID the Revised Statutes is not law, what right has then c. Meyer Zulick, or any other mso, to copyright 1t as such, h,s and en- desvor to foist it in the citizens of the territory to effec. them even unto life and death? If there be other laws Tn eI- istencs which do not appear in the Re vIsed Statutes, where are they, snd what are they, and what has been gained by thIs expenditure of Sl0O00 of the pso- ples money to pay for a revision which did not TevIse, snd compilation which did not compile!